I did anything but merely pass off your questions, but
tried (apparently not to your satisfaction) to address
all of them.

In one of several lengthy responses, I asked for your
assistance in defining your concerns by posing
questions which I did not get a reply to as the focus
shifted from ETs to the supernatural.

The brief discussion of ETs makes it pretty clear that
they pose no theological problems for christianity.

At the end of the day in our discussion, it appeared
your concern was with the supernatural rather than
ETs. As I tried to point out, "supernatural" involves
a lot of definitional issues, and you didn't bother to
provide your definition of supernatural. What you did
suggest was that you meant essenitally something out
of the ordinary person's experience -- but that covers
a vast array of phenomena that are clearly not
considered supernatural in any sense. Anyway, if you
want to discuss the particulars, that might be
fruitful, but I hardly think the responses to your
question about ETs were merely passing them off.

--- Steve Petermann <steve@spetermann.org> wrote:
> > "If we discover other bodies, they must be
> habitable or uninhabitable: and
> > the odd thing is that both these hypotheses are
> used as grounds for
> > rejecting Christianity. If the universe is teeming
> with life, this, we are
> > told, reduces to absurdity the Christian claim--or
> what is thought to be
> > the
> > Christian claim--that man is unique, and the
> Christian doctrine that to
> > this
> > one planet God came down and was incarnate for us
> men and our salvation.
> > If, on the other hand, the earth is really unique,
> then that proves that
> > life is only an accidental by-product in the
> universe, and so again
> > disproves our religion. Really, we are hard to
> please."
>
>
> But shouldn't we be hard to please? Did Lewis do a
> detailed systematics on
> the question? Is systematics only for fleshing out
> the stuff that poses no
> real foundational challenge? I posed a few questions
> that no one addressed,
> passing them off as scholastic gymnastics. Seems to
> me that Christianity
> can't afford to hold positions that can be so easily
> shaken by the SETI
> group getting a message next week. (Anyone see
> _Contact_). Of course it may
> never happen but since it reasonably could and
> reasonable people would like
> to know Christianity's response, can it make a
> compelling case?
>
> Steve Petermann
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:42 PM
> Subject: C.S. Lewis on ETs and theology
>
>
> > Several recent posts have dealt with the question
> of ETs in relation to
> > Christian doctrine. Someone not on our list
> called attention to the
> > following passage from C.S. Lewis, in just this
> connection. I offer it
> here
> > with no further comment.
> >
> > ted
> >
> >
> > C.S. Lewis, "Dogma and the Universe," in The
> Grand Miracle and Other
> > Essays on Theology and Ethics from 'God in the
> Dock,' ed. by W. Hooper
> > (New York: Ballantine Books, 1990), p. 14:
> >
> > "If we discover other bodies, they must be
> habitable or uninhabitable: and
> > the odd thing is that both these hypotheses are
> used as grounds for
> > rejecting Christianity. If the universe is teeming
> with life, this, we are
> > told, reduces to absurdity the Christian claim--or
> what is thought to be
> > the
> > Christian claim--that man is unique, and the
> Christian doctrine that to
> > this
> > one planet God came down and was incarnate for us
> men and our salvation.
> > If, on the other hand, the earth is really unique,
> then that proves that
> > life is only an accidental by-product in the
> universe, and so again
> > disproves our religion. Really, we are hard to
> please."
> >
> >
>